Europe

Senate Supporters of Russia Rights Bill Press On Despite Warning

Press Release
Erik Wasson

Senate supporters of a Russia human-rights bill linked to trade said Tuesday that they are pressing forward despite a warning from the Russian ambassador this week that the bill will impair relations.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), would freeze the assets of Russian officials allegedly involved in the suspicious death of Russian whistle-blower Sergei Magnitsky in November 2009.

Ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) said that he is fighting to get the bill voted on, and he and Cardin dismissed the comments by Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak that it would cause a “significant” reaction in Moscow and impair relations. “I accept that he made that assessment, but I would point out that this bill arises in the course of trying to do a number of things that will assist our relations with Russia, whether in trade or diplomacy, and it appears to me that the Magnitsky issue does make a point about our regard for human rights of citizens,” Lugar said.

Cardin said that his bill is meant to benefit the Russian people and said the United States is just reaffirming international norms. “This is for the Russians, it’s not for us,” he said, citing words of support from ordinary Russians he has received. “This is not meddling.”

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is moving toward considering the bill.

Lugar told reporters on Tuesday that the bill is no longer on the docket for a meeting this week, but he continues to press for passage. “The chairman has decided to take the Magnitsky issue off the table,” Lugar said. He added that Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) has been in consultations with the White House in making his decision.
Kerry spokeswoman Jodi Seth said the bill was never up for discussion this week, however, and that Kerry is supportive of the bill and is working toward its passage.

One of the items under discussion is finding a way to make the bill about human rights more broad rather than just about the situation in Russia, sources said. The Senate proponents of the bill are linking its passage to the extension of permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Russia. Passing the Russia trade bill is the top trade agenda item for the White House this year. Russia will join the World Trade Organization regardless of congressional action — if PNTR is not passed, U.S. exporters will be penalized with higher tariffs than those faced by other WTO members. PNTR supporters argue that because of this self-injuring aspect to the bill, it is not the right vehicle to press Russia on rights.

Cardin expressed confidence that he was winning the fight, however. “There is a growing consensus in Congress and on the part of the administration that it is going to be a part of PNTR,” Cardin said. “I think we have the votes on its own merits but I think it will be helpful to have it as a part of PNTR.”

For more information, please visit:

The Hill—Senate Supporters of Russia Rights Bill Press on Despite Warning— 24 April 2012

 

 

Magnitsky Case Files Identify New Information on Russian Officials Involved In $230 Million Tax Fraud Cover-Up

Press Release
Hermitage Capital

18 April 2012 — New files from the posthumous case files against Sergei Magnitsky reveal the name of the main “expert” witness used to absolve Interior Ministry officers from liability for the $230 million corruption scheme uncovered by Sergei Magnitsky. The expert was Maxim Tretiakov, head of the legal department of Moscow Tax Office No 28, the office at the centre of the corrupt tax refunds scheme.

Sergei Magnitsky (Photo courtesy of Jewish Russian Telegraph)

In return for his “friendly testimony”, the Interior Ministry officers who themselves had a conflict of interest, exonerated him and his colleagues and claimed that the $230 million tax refund was executed by a “sawmill employee” and a “jobless” individual, and that all bank records proving otherwise had burned in a truck explosion and cannot be traced. As a result, officials from the Moscow Tax Office Number 28 were able to continue with their corrupt scheme, and were recently shown to have executed $1 billion in fraudulent tax refunds over a four-year period from 2006-2010. Families of the tax and Interior Ministry officers involved in the scheme have become $47 million richer after the thefts and have been shown to invest in luxurious foreign real estate and foreign bank accounts.

“The fact that the head of the legal department at the tax office who oversaw the theft of the $230 million that Sergei Magnitsky uncovered would be the expert witness justifying the police actions sheds further light on the absurdity and complete breakdown of law in Russia. In any other country, revelations like this would lead to mass resignations of cabinet ministers,” said a Hermitage Capital representative.

Documents from the case files indicate that Maxim Tretiakov from the Moscow Tax Office No 28 provided “expert” testimony on 12 February 2008, two months after his Tax Office perpetrated the $230 million tax refund. His testimony was obtained by Pavel Karpov, Interior Ministry officer directly implicated in the $230 million tax refund. Pavel Karpov was named by Sergei Magnitsky and in Hermitage Fund’s complaints, along with officer Artem Kuznetsov, for their role in the illegal seizure of documents of Hermitage Fund companies that were used by Russian officials and criminals to fraudulently re-register those companies and perpetrate the tax refund scheme.

Maxim Tretiakov whose office approved the $230 million tax refund in one day, claimed that there was a legal justification for Interior Ministry officers’ actions. To confirm his expertise, Mr Tretiakov said in his testimony to investigator Karpov: “My job responsibilities include the representation of the interests of tax inspection in court, sanctioning of decisions, and clarification of current legislation.”

A year later, on 27 February 2009, Mr. Tretiakov gave further testimony in relation to the $230 million tax refund. He claimed he had not been aware that the refund was illegal and requested to be declared a “victim,” claiming his “business reputation suffered” from the refund. “On 19 February 2009 from the documents received from the Interior Ministry’s Investigative Committee we learned that the directors of Parfenion and Mahaon, earlier in 2007, presented to the tax inspection Number 28 in Moscow false documents to justify the overpayment of income tax for 2006 and thus received illegally budget funds and caused damage to the business reputation of tax office Number 28 and material damage for the refunded amount,” said Mr Tretiakov in his 27 February 2009 testimony.

On the back of Mr Tretiakov’s testimonies, the Interior Ministry’s investigation into the $230 million tax refund was closed in March 2011 concluding that the tax officials, including Maxim Tretiakov, were “tricked,” “mislead” and “unaware.” The only persons prosecuted by the Interior Ministry for the largest single tax refund fraud in Russian history, were a sawmill employee and an unemployed man. Both men had previous links to Interior Ministry officers Artem Kuznetsov and Pavel Karpov named by Sergei Magnitsky as involved in the scam (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bdae02a8-e784-11df-b5b4-00144feab49a.html#axzz1sKATheoD) who were absolved from responsibility.

At the same time, Mr Tretiakov’s tax office was in the middle of a four-year $1 billion tax refund embezzlement scheme, according to the newspaper Novaya Gazeta (http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/51924.html).

Tax Official Maxim Tretiakov is Number 45 on the U.S. Helsinki Commission List of officials involved in the torture and death of Magnitsky and the corruption he uncovered. Investigator Pavel Karpov is Number 21 on the list.

The scale and duration of the tax refund scheme has raised questions over the role of Alexei Kudrin, former Russian Finance Minister. Public questions were formulated by Andrei Illarionov, former economic advisor to the Russian president (http://echo.msk.ru/blog/aillar/875912-echo/).In Kudrin’s reply on 11 April 2012, he said that neither he, nor his subordinates at the Federal Tax Ministry and Treasury gave instructions to execute the illegal tax refunds (http://akudrin.ru/news/otvety-na-voprosy.html). This prompted further questions from Mr Illarionov on 12 April 2012 (http://echo.msk.ru/blog/aillar/877960-echo/questioning) who is challenging whether Mr Kudrin is fit to lead the Committee for Civic Initiatives, an organization he unveiled on 5 April 2012, which stated fighting corruption as one of its goals (http://akudrin.ru/news/zayavlenie-o-sozdanii-komiteta-grazhdanskikh-initsiativ.html).

For further information please contact:

Hermitage Capital

Phone:              +44 207 440 17 77
Website:           http://lawandorderinrussia.org
 
Facebook:        http://on.fb.me/hvIuVI
Twitter:             @KatieFisher__
Livejournal:       http://hermitagecap.livejournal.com/

Former Russian Finance Minister ‘Explains’ Why $1 Billion Went Missing

By Alexandra Halsey-Storch
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia–On Wednesday April 11, 2012 the Former Russian Finance Minister, Alexei Kudrin, attempted to set forth an explanation as to why $1 billion was stolen from the Russian budget while under his supervision between 2006 and 2010.

Former Finance Minister, Alexei Kudrin (Photo Curtesy of The Telegraph)

Kudrin claimed that by no fault of his own was this money stolen.  Strangely, and perhaps even unbelievably, “Employees of the Treasury cannot challenge the appropriateness of [the illegal approvals of tax refunds for millions of dollars]. Neither the leadership of the Treasury, nor, especially, the leadership of the Ministry of Finance interfere in this process.” In other words, it simply was not part of Kudrin’s duty as a Finance Minister to protect the funds.

Kudrin went on to state that, “neither the Ministry of Finance, nor I, at that time as Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister, had the authority [to investigate the thefts].”

Despite not being able to investigate the crime,  Kudrin was aware of the illegal actions taking place. In August 2008, and again on October 13, 2009, Hermitage Capital—an investment fund that has invested about $4 billion in Russia— contacted Kudrin and provided detailed evidence of the tax official’s involvement in the thefts.

The 2008 letter “described evidence of the theft of $230 million” by way of tax inspections. No Russian official responded to the letter.

The 2009 letter described 10 transactions used by the same tax inspections in Moscow to steal $470 million from the 2006-2008 Russian budget. The Deputy Finance Minister responded to the letter stating that, “the Finance Ministry does not have authority to investigate the facts of budget thefts stated in [the] application.”

19 days after the receipt of the 2009 later, a Hermitage Capital attorney, who had initially exposed the tax rebate fraud, Sergei Magnitsky, was killed at the hands of abusive Russian authorities.

Magnitsky, who gave “sworn testimony against the officials involved, had been detained shortly after divulging the scheme. At the time of his death, he had been incarcerated for about a year.

In response to Kudrin’s naïve statements made this week, a Hermitage Capital representative countered that, “It is remarkable that the man whose responsibility was to protect the finances of the Russian state could say that he shouldn’t interfere when crimes were going on under his nose, in which $1 billion was stolen directly from the Russian treasury.”

Moreover, “not a single government employee [has] been charged or prosecuted for these successive crimes…” despite having been discovered over four years prior, said a Hermitage Capital representative.

Perhaps most egregious, is the blatant hypocrisy that the Russian government has emanated in the weeks following the tax fraud exposure: “the Russian budget is no longer functioning for the Russian people, but is now an unrestrained source of financing for corrupt officials and organized crime,” said a Hermitage Capital representative.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

European Court of Human Rights Denies Right to Incestuous Relationship

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

STRASBOURG, France — The European Court of Human Rights on Thursday denied German man’s human right to carry on an incestuous relationship with his sister.  Patrick S. of Leipzig, the man convicted in this case, failed in his assertion that a ban on incest violated his right to “respect for private and family life,” which the European Convention on Human Rights protects.

Patrick S., who spent three years in prison for having an incestuous relationship with his sister (Photo courtesy of Spiegel Online)

The ECHR is the judicial prong of the Council of Europe, a group of forty-sever member states located in Strasbourg, France.

In a unanimous decision the Court held that although the German law’s effect violated Patrick S.’s choice of family life, it is nevertheless permissible because it is “aimed at the protection of morals and the rights of others.”

Germany’s law is predicated on the likelihood that a child of an incestuous relationship will be born with a disability.

The story underpinning the case is unusual.  Patrick S. became estranged from his biological family shortly after his birth in 1976 and was raised in care.  It was not until 2000 that he reunited with his family.  At that point he developed a consensual sexual relationship with his biological sister.  Over the course of that relationship from 2001 to 2005 they had four children together.

Germany outlaws sexual relations between relatives and punishes such behavior with up to three years in prison or a fine.  Patrick S. was handed several prison sentences and has already spent three years in prison.

The ruling has prompted some German legislators to call for a repeal of the incest ban and join nations like France, Japan, Turkey, and Brazil in allowing family members to have sexual relationships.  Hans-Christian Ströbele of the German Green Party said, “Two grown up people should be able to decided for themselves whether they want to have sex with each other — assuming, of course, that they love each other and it happens voluntarily and there is no form of dependency in the relationship.”

The center-left German newspaper Suddeusche Zeitung also wrote in opposition to the ECHR’s ruling:

The unspoken central reason for the societal taboo and the penal ban on incest is the possibility of hereditary defects — a factor that Strasbourg only hinted at. But the intention behind the eugenic argument is one that is indefensible, and not just in Germany with its terrible Nazi past: The increased risk of hereditary defects does not justify a legal ban. Otherwise you would have to legally ban other risk groups, like women over 40 or people with genetic diseases, from having children. Does anyone truly want to prevent predictable disabilities using penal measures and thus deny disabled children the right to life in 2012? That’s absurd. And yet such fears of genetic damage are precisely what shape the punishibility of sexual intercourse between siblings.

An editorial in Die Tageszeitung, however, applauds the ruling:

The ban on incest is no arbitrary law or anachronistic rule that is irreconcilable with self-determination in sexuality and an enlightened society. To the contrary: It is, as the anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss said, a prerequisite for sociality — and a prerequisite for enlightenment and the rights of the individual.

In the aftermath of the ruling, Patrick S. says that the German law has ruined his family.  He and his sister are now separated and three of the children live in foster homes.  The fourth child remains with the mother.

For more information please see:

The Independent — European Court Supports Guilty Verdict In Incest Case — 13 April 2012

MSNBC — German Incest Couple Loses Human Rights Case — 12 April 2012

Spiegel Online — German Incest Ban Upheld By European Court — 12 April 2012

Spiegel Online — ‘Siblings Tied By Incest Don’t Belong In Courts’ — 12 April 2012

Washington Post — Germany Didn’t Violate Man’s Right Over Incest Conviction, European Court Says — 12 April 2012

Charges Against Magnitsky Doctor Dropped

By Terance Walsh
Impunity Watch Reporter, Europe

MOSCOW, Russia — Russian authorities have dropped charges against Larisa Litvinova, one of the doctors originally charged for her role in the torture and death attorney Sergei Magnitsky.  The charges are no longer applicable because the statute of limitations expired.

Sergei Magnitsky (Photo courtesy of BBC)

The decision to drop the charges was made last week but was not announced until Monday.

In a document to Magnitsky’s mother Investigator Marina Lomonosova said, “Hereby I order to terminate criminal proceedings in relation to Larisa Litvinova for the crime of causing death inadvertently, as a result of the improper conduct of professional duties due to the expiry of the statute of limitations.”

Authorities did not file charges until twenty months after Magnitsky’s death.  During that time officials disclaimed any wrongdoing in the matter.  It was not until international pressure mounted that authorities filed charges.

In December 2011 Russia reduced the statute of limitations for several crimes, including the crime for which Litvinova was charged.  According to President Dmitry Medvedev the amendements were part of “the humanization of the legal system.”

Litvinova was the doctor in charge at Moscow’s Butyrka maximum security prison while Magnitsky was detained there for almost four months.  Under her supervision Magnitsky never received treatment for the gallstones and pancreatitis he developed while detined prior to his trial.

Magnitsky was under Litvinova’s care for over a month leading up to his death and Litvinova never ran ultrasound tests or blood or urine tests, which would have been expected given Magnitsky’s symptoms.  Even in spite of twenty letters of complaint pleading for medical care from Magnitsky and his lawyers to the Prosecutor’s Office, the Interior Ministry, the Federal Penetentiary System, and the courts, Magnitsky still never received the care he needed.

In an official statement Investigator Lomonosova said, “The crime committed by the defendant [Litvinova L.A.] is an inadvertent criminal act, for which the maximum sentence does not exceed three years… Currently, the crime committed by Litvinova L.A. is considered by law as a crime of insignificant severity, for which the statute of limitation constitutes two years…L.A. Litvinova expressed her consent to the termination of prosecution on that ground.”

In charging Litvinova only with “shortcomings in the provision of medical care”, Russian officials refuse to admit that Magnitsky was tortured.  If they were to admit that Litvinova’s refusal to administer medical care was torture she would be subject to a ten year statute of limitations.

Hermitage Capital has harshly criticized the decision to drop charges against Litinova, calling it “the latest example of the reluctance within the Russian government to hold anyone accountable.”

Furthemore, Hermitage accused Russian authorities of dishonesty in the handling of the Magnitsky case.  “In dropping charges against Ms. Litvinova, the Russian investigators have refused to acknowledge that Sergei Magnitsky had been tortured in custody, a crime that has a 10-year statute of limitations.”

A spokesman for Hermitage commented, “It has become clear today that the whole process of prosecution of the scapegoats in Sergei’s death has been aimed at creating an illusion that at least someone would be punished.”

William Browder, Hermitage’s executive director, expressed his regrets that the doctors were even charged in the case, calling them scapegoats.  He further lamented that the Russians could not “even scapegoat the scapegoats.”

Litvinova is one of sixty Russian officials (the “List of 60”) that Magnitsky supporters have asked the international community to sanction for her role in the Magnitsky case.  The “List of 60” includes officials from the Interior Ministry, the Prosecutor’s Office, the Federal Penetentiary System, the Federal Security Service, and judges in federal courts. The only remaining member of the “List of 60” who is still facing charges is Doctor Kratov.

Magnitsky’s life ended after a series of events precipitating from his discovery of a tax fraud scheme run by Russian officials through his company, Hermitage Captial.  Officials turned the tax fraud accusations against Magnitsky and detained him in a maximum security prison.  There he was denied basis living amenities and emergency medical care.  He died in custody in November 2009.

Russian officials have acquiesced in the belief that Magnitsky died as a result of negligence by prison officials.  They refuse, however, to look further into the motives that seem apparent in light of the circumstances surrounding Magnitsky’s death.

After Magnitsky’s death, President Medvedev swore to oversee the investigation.  The investigation is slated to conclude later this month.

For more information please see:

The Sydney Morning Herald — Outrage As Investigators Drop Prison Death Charges — 10 April 2012

BBC — Magnitsky Death: Charges Against Russia Jail Doctor Dropped — 9 April 2012

The Moscow Times — Magnitsky Doctor No Longer Faces Charges — 9 April 2012

Washington Post — Russia Drops Charge Against Doctor At Prison Where Lawyer Who Reported Corruption Died — 9 April 2012